DDT "EXPERT" DEBUNKED

Apoorva Mandavilli, Nature Medicine's senior news editor, has written a superb article titled "DDT returns". While reading the article I got the distinct impression Mandavilli was directly responding to Tim Lambert's (Deltoid at Scienceblogs.com) DDT misrepresentations.

Lambert:

"[The World Health Organization] recommends indoor residual spraying of DDT for malaria vector control". (It doesn't - ed.)

Mandavilli:

On 2 May, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), arguably the most powerful donor agency in the world, endorsed the indoor spraying of DDT for malaria control. The World Health Organization (WHO) is set to follow. In its new guidelines, a final version of which is expected to be released later this summer, the WHO is unequivocal in its recommendation of DDT for indoor residual spraying.

Lambert:

The goal should be to reduce malaria and you should let the experts figure out the best way to do this. It should not be to spray DDT.

Mandavilli:

"DDT is the most effective chemical, the most effective insecticide in terms of malaria," says Arata Kochi, director of the WHO's Global Malaria Programme.

Lambert:

There is no de facto ban on DDT.

Mandavilli:

In theory, any country is free to use DDT. The Stockholm Convention of 2001 sought a global ban on DDT, but many countries and scientists argued against the ban, citing its value in malaria control. The final treaty made an exemption for DDT's use in public health, but called for countries to gradually phase out the pesticide.

Still, in places where malaria was still endemic, the treaty spelled disaster.

Most African nations are heavily dependent on foreign aid and can ill afford to cross a line drawn by donor agencies.

USAID never banned DDT outright, for instance, but nor did it fund DDT's purchase—which amounts to the same thing.

Lambert:

Alicia Colon has written the usual rubbish about how Rachel Carson killed millions of people...

Mandavilli:

"I think the whole push of the environmentalists like Rachel Carson and many others to eliminate all uses of DDT are, quite honestly, responsible for millions and millions and millions of human deaths," says Don Roberts, professor of tropical public health at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland.

Lambert:

For the umpteenth time: I do not oppose the use of DDT and neither does the World Bank.

Mandavilli:

USAID never banned DDT outright, for instance, but nor did it fund DDT's purchase—which amounts to the same thing. For that reason, the May announcement is widely seen as a change in policy even though the agency doesn't position it as such. The World Bank went one step further, making the ban of DDT a condition for loans.

At this point an important question arises: Is there any aspect of the use of DDT against Malaria that has not been misrepresented by Tim Lambert?

Lambert, who averaged about five DDT posts a month earlier in the year, has only posted on DDT once in the past two months. I think that's because it has finally sunk into his great big thick head that the scientific community's anti-DDT position was moderating. The anti-DDT tide had turned. Dumb-arse.

Note: Mandavilli's article is subscription only, thus no link. If you'd like to purchase it – it's a very informative read – go here.

Update: In related DDT news there's this from Paul Driessen:

DDT is not a silver bullet. However, it is a vital component of a truly integrated program to control this devastating disease. Simply put, no other chemical – at any price – can do what DDT does.

Concerning that nonexistent DDT ban there's this:

Beginning in the 1970s, the United States and several European nations banned the pesticide, largely due to concerns about environmental harm. Pressure from international agencies also led many African countries to abandon DDT`s use.

But the world`s malaria epidemic continued to escalate, killing an estimated 1 million people annually -- about 90 percent of them children under the age of 5 in sub-Saharan Africa.

Now, the World Health Organization is set to endorse the use of DDT for malaria control and the U.S. Agency for International Development has approved DDT`s reintroduction.

It'll be interesting to see if Lambert has anything to say about any of this. He has been very busy lately, you know, addressing some very important issues.

Update II: If you're unfamiliar with Lambert and the way he operates, here's the crash course: he's a lying control freak.

Despite my being at best a minnow in the blogging sea he's shit scared of me for some reason – today he removed the following comment from this thread, presumably because he found it threatening:

In an earlier thread you accuse a commenter of sock-puppetry for using a pseudonym. Here you say use of a pseudonym is not sock-puppetry. Which is it?

The comment was there for a couple of hours and then disappeared: no comment or explanation, just gone. I emailed him but, as always, he refuses to respond.

Update III: My apologies to GMO Pundit for not acknowledging that he made me aware of the Nature Medicine article. Thanks, David.

Update IV: Lambert's limited response is discussed here.